The Washington critic., 1887-12-17
THE RIGHT TO DRINK.

II seems that the prohibition question
n Kansas was not entirely settled by the
ate decision of the United States SUI
preme Court.
One Of the lower courts in Kansas
uaving decided that citizen had no
ight, under the prohibitory law of 1881,
TO keep Intoxicating liquors upon his
premises, for his own use or The use Of
his friends. an appeal was taken to the
Supreme Court OF the State, and on
Tuesday lust the ruling Of the court be-
low was reversed.
The defendant in thi, ease was resi-
dent of Miami County, who, being fond
ofan occasional toddy, and having neigh
bors affected with similar weakness,
was in the habit of sending to Kansas
City every now and then fortlic necessary
supplies, which, when received, were
kept in the back part OF his store for the
accommodation of the parties interested.
All who contributed to the purchasing
fund were privileged 10 90 there and
help themselves; and yet, although it
htS sHbN u oil tllt lIliil llld' lnt utlcllu-
ant acted merely for himself and as the
agent of his friends in the matter, dcriv-
ing no profit from the transaction what
ever, the court convicted him of Il viola
ton Of the statute.
The opinion handed down by the su.
preme Court is that any men who is the
lawful and bona fidc posscssor of intoxi-
eating liquors may use the article in any
way he sees fit, excepting 10 sell il.
That is, he can keep 1t in his store or
house or woodshed or barn, drink rs
often and as much as he chooses, orgive
it TO others to be drank where most con-
venient and in quantities to suit, with
ont becoming amenable to the provisions
Of the act inhibiting the manufacture
and traffic.
In this opinion all the judges concur,
and the opinion will doubtless stand US
good law and good sense.
Ii is not probable that mere question
of personal liberty like this will he taken
to any higher tribunal. The Supreme
Court Of the United States says to the
legislative authorities of Kansas: Iou
can make it felony TO manufacture
whisky or any other alcoholic beverage
within the limits of the State; YOU can
inhibit the sale of it, either by distil-
lers or retail dealers, and YOU can use
extraordinary powers in the enforcement
of your prohibition without incurring
damages. But there is one line Beyond
which this high tribunal will never go.
1t is The line drawn by the Supreme
Court of Kansas-that prohibition of the
manufacture and sale Of liquors does not
prohibit their consumption.
The prohibitory law of Kansas de.
fines whisky and its kindred beverage,
as something which no citizen of The
State shall create or deal in as mer.
chandise. AT the same time tn,
Supreme Court recognizes it as propert,
that may be bought wherever it is law
fully exposed for sale, brought into the
State MS other merchandise by the bot
tie, demijohn or barrel and be con
sumed by the owner with the sam,
freedom as he consumes his tea ant
coffee or given away with as little offens,
10 the law as he would dispense the hos
pitalites of his household,
Tho time may come when every Stat,
and Territory Of the Union shall hay,
its prohibitory law, and we do not sa,
that the country will not be better Of
for the shutting down of every distillcr.
and the shutting up Of every liquo
saloon, but there is II limit beyon,
which this species of legislation will no
and should not extend-that is, tn
right of the citizen to judge for himsel
what he shall eat and drink and where
withal be clothed.